I had similar experience with Linux on Acer. It was not an Ubuntu version, though, but some Limpus Linux. The first time I booted the machine it went straight into command line shell, and id didn't even have X installed.
I wrote to Acer about it and got no reply. They don't seem to care.
Fortunately, I have done my homework and selected a favorably reviewed model, and everything worked once I got Arch on it.
Contradict just means to take a contrary position.
Yes, but the point was not that they used "contradicts", but "flatly contradicts", which sounds like it shouldn't. So, yeah, I think AC's point is completely valid.
My point was, you can apply that very paragraph to virtually all professions, and insert "labor laws" (or whatever you like, for that matter) in place of "copyright".
Oh, and I don't believe there's such thing as a "nature of the system" which can be "perfectly acceptable". If you can accept such an artificial concept, surely you must accept copyright laws as the "nature of the legal system". It's not about the nature of the system, but about people's obedience.
The real question is why people find things acceptable that should have never existed in the first place, let alone persisted for so long.
they could easily cut down a lot of costs by lowering their wages down to something reasonable, or using new actors that aren't as spoiled and greedy.
Which brings us to another good question. Why won't people settle for those new ungreedy actors?
I've never paid much attention to actors. I usually remember the title of the movie, the director's name, and maybe the screenwriter if it's a really good story. But people around me seem to think a lot more about actors and stars...
With easy (which comes with legal) copying, just one good quality bootleg (as in, stolen film reel or disk, not camera-in-a-theater) and tons of people won't bother with a theater.
Don't worry, that'll change soon enough.:)
Here, the man said it better than anyone:
"And that's the key to understanding [Digital Manners Policies by Microsoft]. Don't be fooled by the scare stories of wireless devices on airplanes and in hospitals, or visions of a world where no one is yammering loudly on their cellphones in posh restaurants. This is really about media companies wanting to exert their control further over your electronics. They not only want to prevent you from surreptitiously recording movies and concerts, they want your new television to enforce good "manners" on your computer, and not allow it to record any programs. They want your iPod to politely refuse to copy music to a computer other than your own. They want to enforce their legislated definition of manners: to control what you do and when you do it, and to charge you repeatedly for the privilege whenever possible." (-- Bruce Schneier http://www.schneier.com/essay-224.html)
Many who have and will join the Pirate Party don't do so out of a desire to screw content creators.
I'm sorry, but most people know little about what they are voting for, pirate or no-pirate. Some do, perhaps. But they are always minority. Most of the people probably like that they are called "Pirate", or love the idea someone actually identifying with what they do in their free time. It's like a little boy meeting an adult that's into Nintendo Wii. It's probably like getting their parent's approval to them: "Yay! I thought this day would never come!"
First of all, I wonder if "HP recommends Windows Vista® Business" (c/p from the product's description on HP's site) will go away when Linux offering is finally presented.
Also, I wonder if the Linux OS will be labeled "Genuine Novell(r) SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop(tm)" or just "Novell(r) SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop(tm)". Imagine the following scenario: an unsuspecting consumer comes to the website, sees a bunch of "genuine" Windows products, and then notices a (non-genuine, huh?) Linux-something desktop and goes "Wtf? Why is this not genuine?!"... That'd be M$: 1, Novell: 0...
Yeah, I'm skeptical... They all say they support open-source and free software, whatever. But I think they are just trying to get whatever piece of market they can.
Remember how the Punk movement started off as an attempt to contradict the system, and now it's highly commercialized. You can earn a good buck for pre-torn pair of jeans, and you can sell a circle-A leather jacket... people used to make these things by themselves to make a statement. Now you can get off-the-shelf statements for money. I think it's gonna be the same for open-source. In the end, it's all about money, and they don't care about the underlying philosophies. Consumers don't.
Well, public domain is definitely the most free way to distribute software. It also includes (and is most certainly no limited to) the freedoms to take away credit, and also restrict free distribution in the future of modified copies (I think).
The point is, there are two ways to define freedom, so to speak. One is the upstream way, where the freedom is what the authors say it is. You are free (have a license) to do whatever the author says you can, and the freedom is therefore subjective, but can protect the author's work if the author so wishes to. As for the downstream freedom, it is what users think they should be able to do with the software (or whatever creation). This freedom includes patenting, taking credit, selling, hacking, whatever a user can possibly conceive of.
Unfortunately, you can't claim to have enabled absolute downstream freedom if you want the upstream freedoms at the same time. Those contradict each other. The moment you say "I want the credit for my work" you are restricting those users who maybe don't want to give you credit.
It's a thin line, but a line nevertheless. Now, I'm not saying either freedom is better. The latter can only work if there is respect among people (which is usually not the case, especially when financial gain is in the mix), the former is too subjective to please everyone.
The teacher's job is not to teach. The teacher's job is to make learning a better experience for the kids. However, it usually doesn't work that way even for the most resilient of the teaching staff (although, admittedly, most are not resilient at all). So they end up taking the easier path of using standard and proven (?) method of 'disciplining' the 'bad' kids.
The school system also supports this, as well as the parents. Who would want to admit that schools are utterly uninteresting places? Oh, no, they are supposed to be fun places, where you get to go home if you disagree with the teacher.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and I forgot to mention that I got no install CD with the laptop.
I had similar experience with Linux on Acer. It was not an Ubuntu version, though, but some Limpus Linux. The first time I booted the machine it went straight into command line shell, and id didn't even have X installed.
I wrote to Acer about it and got no reply. They don't seem to care.
Fortunately, I have done my homework and selected a favorably reviewed model, and everything worked once I got Arch on it.
Google has one thing that Canonical and Ubuntu even red had doesnt, broad household name recognition
Some even call it "Internet", like my aunt.
Contradict just means to take a contrary position.
Yes, but the point was not that they used "contradicts", but "flatly contradicts", which sounds like it shouldn't. So, yeah, I think AC's point is completely valid.
IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people. Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.
And then [insert company name] will create a security suite that you can shove up your butt, too
Banks ran by thieving government.Sure.
FIFY
It would actually be great that way. However, it's quite the way OP put it.
Check out "Money as debt" (http://www.moneyasdebt.net/) if you want to know how BAD govt run by banks can be.
My point was, you can apply that very paragraph to virtually all professions, and insert "labor laws" (or whatever you like, for that matter) in place of "copyright".
Oh, and I don't believe there's such thing as a "nature of the system" which can be "perfectly acceptable". If you can accept such an artificial concept, surely you must accept copyright laws as the "nature of the legal system". It's not about the nature of the system, but about people's obedience.
The real question is why people find things acceptable that should have never existed in the first place, let alone persisted for so long.
from someone stealing the work and thereby removing their ability to make a living.
"Removing the ability to make a living [on your own]" is the modus operandi in a capitalist system. It happens to every one of us, not just artists.
they could easily cut down a lot of costs by lowering their wages down to something reasonable, or using new actors that aren't as spoiled and greedy.
Which brings us to another good question. Why won't people settle for those new ungreedy actors?
I've never paid much attention to actors. I usually remember the title of the movie, the director's name, and maybe the screenwriter if it's a really good story. But people around me seem to think a lot more about actors and stars...
With easy (which comes with legal) copying, just one good quality bootleg (as in, stolen film reel or disk, not camera-in-a-theater) and tons of people won't bother with a theater.
Don't worry, that'll change soon enough. :)
Here, the man said it better than anyone:
Many who have and will join the Pirate Party don't do so out of a desire to screw content creators.
I'm sorry, but most people know little about what they are voting for, pirate or no-pirate. Some do, perhaps. But they are always minority. Most of the people probably like that they are called "Pirate", or love the idea someone actually identifying with what they do in their free time. It's like a little boy meeting an adult that's into Nintendo Wii. It's probably like getting their parent's approval to them: "Yay! I thought this day would never come!"
First of all, I wonder if "HP recommends Windows Vista® Business" (c/p from the product's description on HP's site) will go away when Linux offering is finally presented.
Also, I wonder if the Linux OS will be labeled "Genuine Novell(r) SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop(tm)" or just "Novell(r) SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop(tm)". Imagine the following scenario: an unsuspecting consumer comes to the website, sees a bunch of "genuine" Windows products, and then notices a (non-genuine, huh?) Linux-something desktop and goes "Wtf? Why is this not genuine?!"... That'd be M$: 1, Novell: 0...
Yeah, I'm skeptical... They all say they support open-source and free software, whatever. But I think they are just trying to get whatever piece of market they can.
Remember how the Punk movement started off as an attempt to contradict the system, and now it's highly commercialized. You can earn a good buck for pre-torn pair of jeans, and you can sell a circle-A leather jacket... people used to make these things by themselves to make a statement. Now you can get off-the-shelf statements for money. I think it's gonna be the same for open-source. In the end, it's all about money, and they don't care about the underlying philosophies. Consumers don't.
"Gee! This almost sounds like the content creators vs the illegal downloaders debate all over again." That just proves the debate is unavoidable. :)
Well, public domain is definitely the most free way to distribute software. It also includes (and is most certainly no limited to) the freedoms to take away credit, and also restrict free distribution in the future of modified copies (I think).
The point is, there are two ways to define freedom, so to speak. One is the upstream way, where the freedom is what the authors say it is. You are free (have a license) to do whatever the author says you can, and the freedom is therefore subjective, but can protect the author's work if the author so wishes to. As for the downstream freedom, it is what users think they should be able to do with the software (or whatever creation). This freedom includes patenting, taking credit, selling, hacking, whatever a user can possibly conceive of.
Unfortunately, you can't claim to have enabled absolute downstream freedom if you want the upstream freedoms at the same time. Those contradict each other. The moment you say "I want the credit for my work" you are restricting those users who maybe don't want to give you credit.
It's a thin line, but a line nevertheless. Now, I'm not saying either freedom is better. The latter can only work if there is respect among people (which is usually not the case, especially when financial gain is in the mix), the former is too subjective to please everyone.
The teacher's job is not to teach. The teacher's job is to make learning a better experience for the kids. However, it usually doesn't work that way even for the most resilient of the teaching staff (although, admittedly, most are not resilient at all). So they end up taking the easier path of using standard and proven (?) method of 'disciplining' the 'bad' kids. The school system also supports this, as well as the parents. Who would want to admit that schools are utterly uninteresting places? Oh, no, they are supposed to be fun places, where you get to go home if you disagree with the teacher. :)